Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Brookings Institution)   Drew Carey describes how to: overhaul the supreme court; make coffee-flavored beer   (brookings.edu) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court justices, size of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, court's size, Supreme Court, federal judges, Democratic candidates  
•       •       •

2025 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Sep 2020 at 6:52 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-22 2:49:57 PM  
Enlarge SCOTUS to 15 Justices.  Term limits to between 17 to 25 years.  Mandatory retirement at 75 or 21 years on the court.
 
2020-09-22 4:58:02 PM  
I think The Cable Guy was really underrated.
 
2020-09-22 6:58:25 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-22 7:02:37 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

I'm not sure how I feel about their tactics, but I suppose you can't argue with results.
 
2020-09-22 7:02:52 PM  
YYYTYTEEEEEsssssssssssssss! Also video tape that decision making. Shiat you could have a cultist in there so long as whenever they did something blatantly wrong people would know whose house to burn down.
 
2020-09-22 7:02:55 PM  
Democrats running to the right since the 90's. Obama winning huge by pushing leftward policy and then running rightward also leading to Trump winning. Now running an even more rightward candidate.

Even is the Dems somehow won the court picks were going to be conservative. Garland isn't progressive by any means.
It just seems that running the terrible candidates they have for 30 years has made a very conservative Supreme Court to keep big money in politics and it was the feature not a bug.
 
2020-09-22 7:03:40 PM  
Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm. You can get some of the same flavors, but better balanced, with plain ol' barley, hops, water, and yeast.
 
2020-09-22 7:04:14 PM  

BeesNuts: [Fark user image image 850x1133]
I'm not sure how I feel about their tactics, but I suppose you can't argue with results.


Is that a nurgle  soldier or teechench?
 
2020-09-22 7:04:36 PM  

FatherChaos: [Fark user image 850x477]


Well, he's not wrong in that at least.
 
2020-09-22 7:04:49 PM  
The suggestion I like best is strict term limits on the justices.  Even thirty years is enough to cycle out the reactionaries steadily enough.
 
2020-09-22 7:07:22 PM  
This article convinced me of a few things:

1. PhDs in Political Science, particularly from the University of Chicago, aren't worth the paper they're printed on

2. The Brookings institute is dumb

3. Being an "expert" doesn't mean you have any particular expertise or mastery of the su ject matter

4. Given the above, and everything else about 2020, we're all farked
 
2020-09-22 7:08:32 PM  
I say we expand the court to include Simon and Paula. But seat them on opposite sides. Simon farked up his back and I don't trust Paula won't try to steal his pain meds.
 
2020-09-22 7:13:16 PM  

twistedsteel5252: BeesNuts: [Fark user image image 850x1133]
I'm not sure how I feel about their tactics, but I suppose you can't argue with results.

Is that a nurgle  soldier or teechench?


It's a Drukhari.

/get it?
//nyuk nyuk nyuk
 
2020-09-22 7:14:44 PM  
18-year term

This.  The whole lifetime appointment thing is ridiculous.
 
2020-09-22 7:15:25 PM  

fallingcow: Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm. You can get some of the same flavors, but better balanced, with plain ol' barley, hops, water, and yeast.


I'm enjoying a cold brew coffee Pumpking right now.
 
2020-09-22 7:17:27 PM  

sinner4ever: Democrats running to the right since the 90's. Obama winning huge by pushing leftward policy and then running rightward also leading to Trump winning. Now running an even more rightward candidate.


You're delusional if you think things like the ACA and LGBT equality are "rightward"
 
2020-09-22 7:22:11 PM  
Making plans is fun.

But no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
 
2020-09-22 7:23:24 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: fallingcow: Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm. You can get some of the same flavors, but better balanced, with plain ol' barley, hops, water, and yeast.

I'm enjoying a cold brew coffee Pumpking right now.


Fark now I'm all Natalie Imbruglia'd because Pumking is one of the rare non-shiat pumpkin beers.
 
2020-09-22 7:24:12 PM  

fallingcow: Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm. You can get some of the same flavors, but better balanced, with plain ol' barley, hops, water, and yeast.


Coffee with quality vanilla flavored vodka is amazing btw.
 
2020-09-22 7:25:54 PM  

anjin-san: sinner4ever: Democrats running to the right since the 90's. Obama winning huge by pushing leftward policy and then running rightward also leading to Trump winning. Now running an even more rightward candidate.

You're delusional if you think things like the ACA and LGBT equality are "rightward"


The ACA was the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s. LGBT equality was attained through the Supreme Court, and Democrats weren't supporting it en masse till after President Obama said his beliefs "evolved" in 2012 (even though then-Senator Obama was already supporting it in 2008).
 
2020-09-22 7:28:58 PM  
The time to recommend limits on the SC power/length of time is not when 1 party just grabbed a lion's share for themselves.
 
2020-09-22 7:43:08 PM  

fallingcow: Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm.


At 8am, though, it's just the thing.
 
2020-09-22 7:45:12 PM  

BigNumber12: fallingcow: Coffee beer sucks. When I get it in variety packs it's just annoying. I don't want caffeine at 8pm.

At 8am, though, it's just the thing.


That's a good point. I may just need to alcoholic harder.

Though I'd rather just put hard liquor in coffee if we're going that way.
 
2020-09-22 7:45:49 PM  
Term limits are a good idea.  I would add two more requirements:

1.) The Senate must definitively reject the nominee within 60 days of the nomination, otherwise it shall be assumed that the Senate consents.  (The "quit dragging my heart around" rule.)
2.) The leadership of the Senate shall not be permitted to participate in, or in any way influence, the vote for/against a nominee.  Failure to abide by this rule shall result in immediate and permanent expulsion from the Senate.  (The "fark you mitch" rule.)
 
2020-09-22 8:23:08 PM  

teto85: Enlarge SCOTUS to 15 Justices.  Term limits to between 17 to 25 years.  Mandatory retirement at 75 or 21 years on the court.


That seems like a good idea.  They will never do that.
 
2020-09-22 8:30:38 PM  
The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.
 
2020-09-22 8:31:01 PM  

Avigdore: The time to recommend limits on the SC power/length of time is not when 1 party just grabbed a lion's share for themselves.


People have been recommending term limits for SCOTUS well before this past week. For example, this paper was published in April 2005, more than fifteen years ago.
 
2020-09-22 8:36:04 PM  

Serious Black: Avigdore: The time to recommend limits on the SC power/length of time is not when 1 party just grabbed a lion's share for themselves.

People have been recommending term limits for SCOTUS well before this past week. For example, this paper was published in April 2005, more than fifteen years ago.


It's almost as if leftists get concerned when one of their stooges isn't in power.

And then they go silent when they get their turn.
 
2020-09-22 8:37:36 PM  

teto85: Enlarge SCOTUS to 15 Justices.  Term limits to between 17 to 25 years.  Mandatory retirement at 75 or 21 years on the court.


Never gonna happen. Would require a constitutional amendment.
 
2020-09-22 8:39:10 PM  

sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.


That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.
 
2020-09-22 8:42:46 PM  

Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.


More constructive than your reply.
 
2020-09-22 8:44:55 PM  

Mugato: I think The Cable Guy was really underrated.


The book was better
 
2020-09-22 8:55:00 PM  

sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.


Sadly, no.
I suppose you're also one of those that thinks the Senate needs to be the opposite party from the President to "keep him in check"?
 
2020-09-22 8:56:36 PM  

sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.


No, he's right. Your idea is dumb as fark.
 
2020-09-22 9:00:06 PM  

gar1013: Serious Black: Avigdore: The time to recommend limits on the SC power/length of time is not when 1 party just grabbed a lion's share for themselves.

People have been recommending term limits for SCOTUS well before this past week. For example, this paper was published in April 2005, more than fifteen years ago.

It's almost as if leftists get concerned when one of their stooges isn't in power.

And then they go silent when they get their turn.


I have no idea who the writers of this article are. I don't know what their political leanings are. I don't think they're obvious from reading the article. They asked a variety of people for input on their proposal, including Reagan's solicitor general. If anything, I might bet a token sum of money on them being Republicans.

You, on the other hand, assumed that they are "leftists" on the basis of... to be honest, I have no idea why you assumed that. Why did you call them "leftists"?
 
2020-09-22 9:02:34 PM  

Sophont: sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.

Sadly, no.
I suppose you're also one of those that thinks the Senate needs to be the opposite party from the President to "keep him in check"?


Nope. Just leads to constant obstruction.

emtwo: sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.

No, he's right. Your idea is dumb as fark.


I might agree, if either of you put up a valid argument as to why or the issues it would cause. Instead you both added completely worthless comments. I assume this normal for the politics tab. You dislike an idea, you just criticize instead of actually debating reasons.

The point of it is an attempt at keeping far right and far left bullshiat from getting in. If you know the Supreme Court is stacked against you, MAYBE you'll legislate less ridiculously, and it'd end the right's bullshiat about "not in an election year except when it's in our favor."

You both sound as angry as Trumpers. Good luck with that.
 
2020-09-22 9:07:11 PM  

sforce: Sophont: sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.

Sadly, no.
I suppose you're also one of those that thinks the Senate needs to be the opposite party from the President to "keep him in check"?

Nope. Just leads to constant obstruction.

emtwo: sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

That's the dumbest farking thing I've heard today.

More constructive than your reply.

No, he's right. Your idea is dumb as fark.

I might agree, if either of you put up a valid argument as to why or the issues it would cause. Instead you both added completely worthless comments. I assume this normal for the politics tab. You dislike an idea, you just criticize instead of actually debating reasons.

The point of it is an attempt at keeping far right and far left bullshiat from getting in. If you know the Supreme Court is stacked against you, MAYBE you'll legislate less ridiculously, and it'd end the right's bullshiat about "not in an election year except when it's in our favor."

You both sound as angry as Trumpers. Good luck with that.


If I told you that the ideal solution was to replace the Supreme Court with 9 whoopie cushions that each produce a slightly different fart noise, would you offer me a lengthy, constructive, and well-reasoned thesis about the flaws in my plan? Or would you simply tell me that it's a dumb farking idea?
 
2020-09-22 9:15:18 PM  

sforce: The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

The point of it is an attempt at keeping far right and far left bullshiat from getting in. If you know the Supreme Court is stacked against you, MAYBE you'll legislate less ridiculously, and it'd end the right's bullshiat about "not in an election year except when it's in our favor."


Among the many idiocies present in your idea, my favorite is that you think the president is a legislative position.

There's your constructive criticism. Now stop throwing a tantrum.
 
2020-09-22 9:19:18 PM  
I'm surprised the solution wasn't to have our pets spayed or neutered.
 
2020-09-22 9:40:14 PM  

sforce: Sophont: sforce: Sophont: sforce: The Supreme Court should be kept at 9 justices. For as long as it's a two party system, 4 should be appointed from each party. The 9th is a temporary appointment for the duration of the current president's term made by the party opposite of the current president's.

codifying the two-party system only increases its power besides that it's no worse than we have.

There is an illegitimate party, though ... that has given up on trying to improve government and demands its abolishment

Reagan's "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. " is at the core of this idiocy -- Reagan was an asshole then and lead a bunch of people into the asshole tunnel.

The article asks some good questions about what each of the solutions (more jurists, eliminate life-time appointments) but as said above:

Dawnrazor: [...] I would add two more requirements:

1.) The Senate must definitively reject the nominee within 60 days of the nomination, otherwise it shall be assumed that the Senate consents.  (The "quit dragging my heart around" rule.)
2.) The leadership of the Senate shall not be permitted to participate in, or in any way influence, the vote for/against a nominee.  Failure to abide by this rule shall result in immediate and permanent expulsion from the Senate.  (The "fark you mitch" rule.)


The problem is hatred and obstruction -- there is no excuse for an opposition Senate to not handle appointments as Mitch did with Obama's requests.
These should be required to deal with (as articles of impeachment from the congress force the senate to take action).

My opinion is that the Democrats should just increase the court size to 13 (1 for each circuit that, by norm, will be picked from the circuit court the judge leaving came from and 1 rover that be the chief justice) fark the issues with size and management suggested in the article -- they're adults -- deal with it.

I would also bring in puerto rico and DC as states.

and I would create some farking laws against bribery (any donation over a stick of gum by anyone), stock-market pilfering and puts some teeth on the norms that keep the senate and executives from being such farking assholes.

Let the congress be the assholes -- they get 2 years and are basically the ID of the union -- we need some people to tell us how we are constantly farking up.
 
2020-09-22 9:54:26 PM  
Ten years. And no more of some yobbo Senator holding it up. Appointment by the President goes straight to the judiciary committee, who hold 10 hours a day of hearings 'TIL it goes to the floor. Food is brought to them in buckets, waste taken out in buckets. Maybe, if they behave we'll use 2 sets of buckets.
 
2020-09-22 9:58:00 PM  

gar1013: Serious Black: Avigdore: The time to recommend limits on the SC power/length of time is not when 1 party just grabbed a lion's share for themselves.

People have been recommending term limits for SCOTUS well before this past week. For example, this paper was published in April 2005, more than fifteen years ago.

It's almost as if leftists get concerned when one of their stooges isn't in power.

And then they go silent when they get their turn.


Since I didn't recognize the authors, I decided to look them up.

The first named author is Steven Calabresi. Among other things, he founded the Yale chapter of the Federalist Society and chaired their board of directors in 2019. The Federalist Society is well known today for being a legal organization that calls five of the current Justices members: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

The second named author is James Lindgren. Among many other things, he is well-known for criticizing law schools for having far too many liberal faculty members and far too few Christians as faculty members.

You accused one of the biggest contributors to the Republican Party's takeover of the federal justice system and one of the biggest antagonists towards liberal faculty at law schools of being "leftists". Why? Because they wrote an article supporting term limits for the Supreme Court more than a decade ago?

I think you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
 
2020-09-22 10:36:59 PM  
"Former Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect in March 2019, and progressive groups such as Take Back the Court and Demand Justice have leapt on board. "

When have the liberals ever had the courts?  From my admittedly limited perspective they seem to have always been slanted conservative but at least the majority on the court were people of honour (somewhat) with a sense of justice.  It's more of a Don't Let The Court Go Pant-Shiatingly Insane situation.
 
2020-09-23 7:21:08 AM  
The 5-5 split is a great idea, but the gop would hate it. There's no way the 5 democrat justices would ever vote on favor of the ghoulishness the right always wants. But as we've seen with the existing gop justices, sometimes they go left.
 
2020-09-23 10:40:39 AM  

Monty_Zoncolan: Veloram: Mugato: I think The Cable Guy was really underrated.

The book was better

Chuck Palahniuk, guy's a freakin' GENIUS!


No, by Harriet Grey.

/wasn't a joke.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.